1.1.1-Kingedmundsroyalmurder
So I come to this late, because I am not nearly as active in the fandom as I really should be, but hopefully I will change that through this. (Also, I’m sorry if I’m not super coherent right now. It’s late and my brain hasn’t been working particularly well lately due to too much school.) Quick personal introduction first. I’m Tamara, at least on this corner of the internet, and I’m a 3rd year anthropology student. I’ve read an abridged version of the brick before, but it was many, many years ago and frankly I don’t remember most of it. I’ve seen the musical live once, will see it again in May, and know the soundtrack by heart. I have yet to see the new movie. I’ve heard the French concept album in its entirety and one day I will own it. I’m a native and fluent French speaker but I live in the States, so I’ll be reading along in French in an effort to keep up my language skills somewhat. Anyway, on to the chapter. I ended up with more to say than I thought I would have, so putting it behind a cut. I do love that Hugo starts us on a tangent. Yes, it’s connected to the story in a fairly integral way, but I suspect this is also Hugo going, “I am not one for a stripped down, linear narrative. Deal with it.” I appreciate that. I also appreciate the subtle snark woven into the narrative. M. Myriel’s potentially sordid past is interesting because right away it sets out the idea that you’re not defined by your past. You can change who you are and you don’t have to be trapped by the person you used to be. (Which is one of Javert’s main flaws, but I’ll talk about that more when we actually get to him. Just a quick forewarning, I will probably have a lot to say about Javert.) The Bishop’s past doesn’t make him any less of a good person; in his decision to change his ways he is redeemed and granted grace. That’s an interesting theme when you consider the repeated use of the word ‘destiny.’ Someone’s destiny is usually seen as fixed, yet Hugo seems to be setting up a theme of choice as well as redemption. It’s possible that the French usage is slightly different from the English one, or that it’s changed over time, but it’s still interesting to consider. I like the idea that the Revolution may have been even more frightening to those outside of France than those in the middle of it all. It certainly fits with how other governments of the time responded to the whole thing. It continues to amuse me how Hugo pretends that he’s not the author merely someone recording actual events. He puts in deliberate vagueness and phrases like “none remembered the event that had brought him to Paris” (paraphrased) which situates him as a narrator in the story. He’s not admitting to his omniscience as the writer. To be honest this kind of annoys me as much as it amuses me, but it’s an interesting technique and it makes us aware of Hugo as the author while we’re reading. Other people talked about how the exchange between M. Myriel and Napoleon is seen as M. Myriel being humble, but it’s also fairly blunt. Sure, he’s giving Napoleon credit for being a great man (French translation “grand homme”) but he’s also pointing out that Napoleon has benefited from meeting him. (“Chacun de nous peut profiter/Both of us can gain something.”) Which frankly is probably the Bishop’s snark coming through. (Have I mentioned that I love his snark? ‘Cause I love his snark.) This passage is interesting: “Personne n’eut ose en parler, personne n’eut meme ose s’en souvenir.” (No one dared talk about it, no one even dared remember it.) It’s talking about the rumors around M. Myriel’s early life. Given who he is, I assume that they don’t dare out of respect rather than fear, but it’s interesting word choice. "Car il semble qu’il soit necessaire qu’une femme soit mere pour etre venerable." (It seems necessary that a woman be a mother in order to be venerable.) This kind of annoys me? I’m not sure if it should, but it does. Probably because I don’t appreciate the glorification of motherhood for personal reasons. And I think that’s all I have for this chapter. That was more than I expected, so sorry for the length. Hopefully it was vaguely interesting. Commentary Alasse-irena I totally agree with your assessment of the Bishop and Napoleon! To tell the Emperor he can profit by looking at you is pretty forward… I also am reblogging to say you are perfectly justified in being bothered by the quote about a woman needing to be a mother to be venerable. I suppose at least he recognised that it is possible to be a good woman without having children - Baptistine is impossibly pure and good, in spite of her lack of children. But yes, I am totally with you. Having children is great, sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s better than not having children… Hugo’s treatment of women overall is slightly suspect (although only in keeping with the time and place he was writing, I suppose), though, so we will have to put up with a lot more of this stuff…